Forget nuance; speak against the accepted and you’re crazy.

I don’t know how clear I’ve made it in the past, but I don’t consider myself an animal “rights” advocate. I understand enough political philosophy to realize that the word rights has specific meaning, and in that context, it’s difficult to defend its use apart from humans. However, that shouldn’t imply an acceptance of animal cruelty, as too many are willing to accept. Basically, I try to approach any such discussion in a rational, intellectual manner. That makes reliance on stupid stereotypes more frustrating. From FARK:

World’s fattest pig sacrificed at religious ceremony in Taiwan. Naturally, animal rights groups are losing their minds (w/ pic of one fat pig)

The headline refers to this article:

The world’s heaviest pig has been sacrificed as part of a religious ceremony, sparking fury among animal welfare groups.

I hope it’s apparent why an animal sacrifice as part of a religious ceremony is ridiculous enough to warrant at least an eye-roll and a sigh. Defenders of such a practice will generally rely on an argument that the animal will be eaten after it is sacrificed killed. We could debate the merits of that, but contrary to what the FARK headline implies, that’s not at stake here. The next paragraph of the article:

The animal, which was force fed sand and metal to reach its record breaking weight of 908kg (143 stone), could not even stand as it had its throat slit at the ritual in Taiwan.

Right, look at those animal rights groups losing their minds. What could they possibly be thinking? They’re lunatics out of touch with reality.

In defense of the normally indifferent FARK commenters, many have said that they have no problem with killing animals, but force feeding an animal sand and metal is too much. Even a pig, which will eat almost anything.